BrowserKey, LLC has followed up its first complaints—filed separately last fall in the Eastern District of Texas against Bank of America, Charles Schwab, and Wells Fargo—with eight more in the same district, one against each of Ally Financial (2:25-cv-00442), Capital One (2:25-cv-00443), Comerica (2:25-cv-00444), First Citizens Bancshares (First Citizens Bank and Trust) (2:25-cv-00451), JP Morgan Chase (2:25-cv-00445), Morgan Stanley (2:25-cv-00446), Regions Financial (Regions Bank) (2:25-cv-00450), and UBS (UBS Financial Services) (2:25-cv-00452) over the provision of their respective “Web and Mobile Applications”. At issue is the support of “biometric, token-based, and/or passwordless authentication”, including Apple’s Touch and Face ID. BrowserKey dismissed its complaint against UBS without prejudice within a few days; UBS has filed a declaratory judgment action against BrowserKey in the District of New Jersey (2:25-cv-03796).

This past January, RPX covered the recorded transfer of a portfolio of mobile payment patents that has now led to litigation. In separate Eastern District of Texas complaints, Secure Mobile Transactions, LLC has sued BOK Financial (Bank of Texas) (9:20-cv-00115), Charles Schwab (9:20-cv-00116), Comerica (9:20-cv-00117), Cullen/Frost Bankers (Frost Bank) (9:20-cv-00118), Independent Bank (9:20-cv-00119), Prosperity Bancshares (Prosperity Bank) (9:20-cv-00120), Regions Financial (Regions Bank) (9:20-cv-00121), and WoodForest Financial Group (WoodForest National Bank) (9:20-cv-00122) over their respective provision of payment cards that use authentication systems compliant with EMVCo’s payment tokenization specification.

DigitalDoors, Inc. keeps filing new cases—and keeps ignoring local disclosure rules as it does. Among an April 2025 wave, so far also hitting Arbor Bancorp (Bank of Ann Arbor) (2:25-cv-11030), Flushing Financial (Flushing Bank) (2:25-cv-01895), Metropolitan Bank Holding (Metropolitan Commercial Bank) (1:25-cv-02891), and Peapack Private Bank and Trust (1:25-cv-02349), is a case that this plaintiff filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Byline Bank (1:25-cv-03843). Local Rule 3.2 there requires a litigant to file a Notification of Affiliates that identifies “any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party”. Instead, Samuel L. Blatnick of Lucosky Brookman, LLP of Overland Park, Kansas, signed a disclosure, purportedly pursuant to this rule, that merely indicates that DigitalDoors has no parent and that no publicly traded company owns 10% or more of its stock. While untethered from the local rule cited, this disclosure is more fulsome than the one that DigitalDoors made in a recent round of cases filed before Northern District of Georgia Judge Victoria M. Calvert. There represented by M. Scott Fuller of Garteiser Honea PLLC, the plaintiff appears to have just ignored Local Rule 3.3.

Formed last year, Paygeo LLC has filed its first patent case, accusing Samsung (2:25-cv-00334) of infringing five patents broadly directed to conducting secure financial transactions. The inventor-controlled plaintiff targets in the Eastern District of Texas complaint the provision of its “mobile payment and authentication platform” and associated services (i.e., Samsung Knox, Samsung Pass, Samsung Pay, and Samsung Wallet), as well as incorporating devices (e.g., smartphones and smartwatches). At issue are a wide array of features, including biometric authentication and PIN codes, mobile payment authentication, and payment method registration and storage.

As RPX previously reported, the litigation operation associated with monetization firm Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP) created persistent confusion in its early days, as it moved from litigation by Illinois entities to litigation through Texas entities. Some of that confusion pervades a recently unsealed order from Western District of Texas Alan D. Albright shifting potentially $600K in attorney fees against plaintiff Silent Communication, LLC and its counsel Ramey LLP in a case filed against BlackBerry, at the same time that Fiserv has asked West Texas District Judge David Counts to clear away a cloud now hovering over the ownership of the patent family that AuthWallet, LLC, also repped by Ramey, has been litigating. The named inventor there has filed declarations with the USPTO suggesting that AuthWallet never actually owned that family.

Fintegrity LLC has filed separate Eastern District of Texas complaints against DXC Technology (Fenergo) (2:25-cv-00295), NICE (2:25-cv-00294), SEON Technologies (2:25-cv-00293), and Sum and Substance (2:25-cv-00292). The defendants are accused of infringing a single patent generally related to “authorizing financial transactions” through the provision of “anti-money laundering (AML) software designed for transaction monitoring”.

In March 2024, AuthWallet, LLC filed a second set of suits—after an earlier round had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice—against Amarillo National Bank, Cullen/Frost Bankers, and Fiserv, all in the Western District of Texas. This past week, District Judge David Counts dismissed the complaints because they failed to adequately plead direct, indirect, and willful infringement, relying on “mixing and matching different accused products in its claim charts”. The dismissal, though, is with leave to amend, and, in the Cullen/Frost Bankers case, the court denied a concurrent motion to sanction AuthWallet’s litigation counsel, Ramey LLP, under Rule 11.

Wapp Tech Limited Partnership and its general partner Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, “Wapp”) have sued Apple together with Capital One and Cullen/Frost (Frost Bank) (4:25-cv-00230) in a single Eastern District of Texas complaint. The plaintiffs assert the same five patents, generally related to a system for developing a mobile device application, that have been in suit against the last three defendants, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. Wapp provides a rundown of this campaign, which began with a case against Micro Focus that produced a $172M jury verdict and, ultimately, a $67.5M settlement.

Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne last week recommended denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by DigitalDoors, Inc. against Frost Bank for inadequate pleading. Clarifying that it is not making a “standard-essential argument” concerning the patents asserted in this campaign, the plaintiff targets “interconnected storage systems” that “operate as a single controlled apparatus to provide secure data vaulting . . . as specified by Sheltered Harbor or its operational equivalent”. The day of the court’s report, DigitalDoors filed new complaints in the Western District of Texas, one against each of Amarillo National Bank (7:25-cv-00102), Broadway Bancshares (7:25-cv-00103), International Bancshares (Commerce Bank) (7:25-cv-00105), Northern Trust (7:25-cv-00106), Pinnacle Bank (7:25-cv-00107), South Plains Financial (City Bank Texas) (7:25-cv-00104), Texas Capital Bancshares (Texas Capital Bank) (7:25-cv-00108), US Bancorp (WestStar Bank) (7:25-cv-00110), VBT Financial (Vantage Bank Texas) (7:25-cv-00109), and Western Alliance Bank (Alliance Association Bank, Bank of Nevada, Bridge Bank, First Independent Bank, Torrey Pines Bank) (7:25-cv-00111).

Attaching an October 7, 2024 letter signed by Michelle Fisher as the CEO of Blaze Mobile Technologies LLC (BMT), Charles Schwab has asked the Northern District of California for declaratory judgments of noninfringement of three patents held by BMT (3:25-cv-02122). RPX has previously noted (see here and here) the flow of patents on which Fisher is a named inventor from Blaze Mobile, Inc.—a Delaware entity already embroiled in a declaratory judgment action filed against it by Samsung in California—to BMT, formed in Texas. Now, Charles Schwab pleads, on information and belief, that BMT “was formed as a conduit for asserting patent infringement claims in the Eastern District of Texas and in an attempt to avoid litigation” in the Northern District of California.